That's 1.5 tricks more than you need to be considered a genius, Ballmer says.

Most companies fail, and successful companies are often one-trick ponies, but Microsoft is a two-and-a-half trick pony, according to former CEO Steve Ballmer, speaking at Oxford's Saïd Business School.

He was responding to a question about why Microsoft had failed to innovate in the mobile space, particularly given that it had invented the tablet computer way before it was popularized by Apple.

"Most tech companies fail," Ballmer replied. "They are zero-trick ponies. They never do anything well and they go away. You are a genius in the industry if you are a one-trick pony. You get some innovation right and then spin it. I am very proud of the fact that [Microsoft] has done at least two tricks. Tricks are worth billions and billions and billions of dollars."

He described the first "trick" as inventing the modern PC with Windows and Office. The second was "bringing microprocessor technology into the data center." He later referred to Xbox as being the additional half trick.

"I won't try to tell you that our record of innovation is perfect, but I'd say we've done more tricks than anybody else," he said. "Apple's done two, we've done two-and-a-half—half for Xbox."

When it comes to mobile, he admitted that "we got a bit behind," but that instead of giving up, Microsoft has tried to work out where it went wrong and find out how to build its assets. This led to Surface, Windows Phone, and the Nokia acquisition, which he described as "very important to us."

"With 20/20 hindsight, I regret that we didn't put the hardware and software together soon enough," he added, describing the "magical" way the PC came together with a Microsoft operating system and IBM hardware, or how Android and Samsung have benefited each other.

When asked what the toughest decision he had to make at Microsoft was, he said that the top five were all about "hiring or firing somebody." He said he had "more angst" about those decisions than that to buy Nokia.

The Nokia acquisition was particularly significant as it is a major hardware play. "The name of the company is Micro-soft," he said, referring to the company's software roots. "Xbox, Surface, and phones mean a pretty fundamental change to the way we self-identify and express our value-add."

The notoriously effervescent executive also told the audience that he was "quite a shy kid." The "most transformative" thing that he did to address this shyness was to be the team manager for the Harvard football team, a thankless administrative task. "You had to get up in front of the team every day and tell guys what to do," he said. "Footballers are not nice to managers, so I had to get myself pumped up. Since Microsoft I've had a lot more practice."

One of the final questions he was asked by an audience member was: "What's the best perk of being immensely wealthy and powerful?" After a raucous laugh from Ballmer—who owns four percent of Microsoft—he said that it was the fact that he can "play about any golf course" he wants on the planet. "I get a real kick out of that," he said. "I'm a lousy golfer, but I really love it."

"You thought it would be something bigger and more cosmic," he said, "but noooooo!"

1) Bringing the Graphical User Interface to the masses and changing the way people interact with PCs2) iPod/iTunes store (this might even be two separate ones)3) iPhone / Apps4) Tablet computing (Microsoft tried and failed so many times on this one).

The second was "bringing microprocessor technology into the data center."

What? Microsoft had nothing to do with that. All the credit goes to intel/amd.

If any software can claim credit it's not Windows, which has never been a dominant force in the server market. Linux came out years ahead of windows server and already had 50% marketshare by the time Microsoft got 20%. Today linux is closer to 75% and windows is still around 20%.

1) Bringing the Graphical User Interface to the masses and changing the way people interact with PCs2) iPod/iTunes store (this might even be two separate ones)3) iPhone / Apps4) Tablet computing (Microsoft tried and failed so many times on this one).

And each has been wroth billions and billions of dollars.

Really?

I will give Apple half for the GUI for the simple fact Microsoft brought it to Billions of people.I will give Apple 1 for iTunes because none of the devices that work with would have gone anywhere without it.I will give Apple half for iPhone because they really did change the "smart phone" what was considered a "smart phone" before the iPhone was complete junk in today's standards.The iPad was a normal progressiion can't give Apple anything for it, natural evolution from the iPod touch and iphoneI will however give apple 1 for the Apple I

1) Bringing the Graphical User Interface to the masses and changing the way people interact with PCs2) iPod/iTunes store (this might even be two separate ones)3) iPhone / Apps4) Tablet computing (Microsoft tried and failed so many times on this one).

And each has been wroth billions and billions of dollars.

I genuinely don't understand what genitalia waving does for either Apple or MS. There are multiple ways that this score can be kept, and it seems a different one comes out on top with each method.

I would be curious to hear more about why he felt angst about the Nokia purchase and what his thoughts were (and are) about the whole thing. I agree that the purchase was necessary for Microsoft to have any chance of catching up in the mobile world. Even now--and this is coming from someone who uses WP8 and enjoys the Nokia phone experience quite a bit--I'm less than sanguine about Microsoft's prospects.

1) Bringing the Graphical User Interface to the masses and changing the way people interact with PCs2) iPod/iTunes store (this might even be two separate ones)3) iPhone / Apps4) Tablet computing (Microsoft tried and failed so many times on this one).

And each has been wroth billions and billions of dollars.

Really?

I will give Apple half for the GUI for the simple fact Microsoft brought it to Billions of people.I will give Apple 1 for iTunes because none of the devices that work with would have gone anywhere without it.I will give Apple half for iPhone because they really did change the "smart phone" what was considered a "smart phone" before the iPhone was complete junk in today's standards.The iPad was a normal progressiion can't give Apple anything for it, natural evolution from the iPod touch and iphoneI will however give apple 1 for the Apple I

All your points are debatable but half for the iPhone is insane. The iPhone is probably worth two points On its own. Apple single handedly created the hardware and os/style for mobile computing. They literally created the modern day smart phone and tablet industries on their own.

1) Bringing the Graphical User Interface to the masses and changing the way people interact with PCs

That's 1.

Quote:

2) iPod/iTunes store (this might even be two separate ones)

If all Apple ever did after Steve Jobs came back was turn around the Mac line and introduce the iPod/iTunes store, we'd be talking about how Apple was a dying company and taking bets on how much longer they'll last. The digital media player phenomenon was a fad, and the vast majority of Apple's profits and market cap has come as a result of the iPhone/iPad.

Quote:

3) iPhone / Apps4) Tablet computing (Microsoft tried and failed so many times on this one).

That's two. Being a handset manufacturer by itself isn't going to be enough, nor a tablet maker. The convergence of phones and computing is something that Apple figured out well before anyone else, and that's where their power lies.

1) Bringing the Graphical User Interface to the masses and changing the way people interact with PCs2) iPod/iTunes store (this might even be two separate ones)3) iPhone / Apps4) Tablet computing (Microsoft tried and failed so many times on this one).

And each has been wroth billions and billions of dollars.

I'm noticing all the downvotes. This seems incredibly accurate. While they weren't the first at any of these, they're nearly universally recognized as the first SUCCESSFUL at these and ushered in a series of companies that copied and then built on the idea.

Who's arguing that this is true?

Edit: When I started typing my reply, no one had yet replied. Although I also see anyone making a compelling case (yet).

The second was "bringing microprocessor technology into the data center."

What? Microsoft had nothing to do with that. All the credit goes to intel/amd.

If any software can claim credit it's not Windows, which has never been a dominant force in the server market. Linux came out years ahead of windows server and already had 50% marketshare by the time Microsoft got 20%. Today linux is closer to 75% and windows is still around 20%.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. The "data center" didn't start when Intel or AMD entered the market, and a lot of people seem to have forgotten Unix.

1) Bringing the Graphical User Interface to the masses and changing the way people interact with PCs2) iPod/iTunes store (this might even be two separate ones)3) iPhone / Apps4) Tablet computing (Microsoft tried and failed so many times on this one).

And each has been wroth billions and billions of dollars.

Really?

I will give Apple half for the GUI for the simple fact Microsoft brought it to Billions of people.I will give Apple 1 for iTunes because none of the devices that work with would have gone anywhere without it.I will give Apple half for iPhone because they really did change the "smart phone" what was considered a "smart phone" before the iPhone was complete junk in today's standards.The iPad was a normal progressiion can't give Apple anything for it, natural evolution from the iPod touch and iphoneI will however give apple 1 for the Apple I

All your points are debatable but half for the iPhone is insane. The iPhone is probably worth two points On its own. Apple single handedly created the hardware and os/style for mobile computing. They literally created the modern day smart phone and tablet industries on their own.

Would it be fair to give credit for IOS alone? Like I said the hardware itself not all that special. I would argue, if AT&T didn't offer an exclusive contract for the iPhone, the iPod Touch would have been release no matter what

The 2 tricks Apple has are for iOS which is 1 for iPhone and 1 for iPad

The iPod and GUI etc and long over and Apple is perceived to be struggling to find a new pony (wearables and a TV are questionable at best) to replace these 2 as smart phones and tablets are on the road to being a commodity.

What about the bloody Apple I. If they didn't come around IBM wouldn't have even entered that market.

The second was "bringing microprocessor technology into the data center."

What? Microsoft had nothing to do with that. All the credit goes to intel/amd.

I think Ballmer means he had stuck an intel prototype into his suit jacket pocket and then walked into a data center.

Hell, we'd been doing it in the Unix space for years before/while Microsoft was involved. And we were doing it with Motorola 88K and 68Ks and Alphas and MIPS.

IBM was doing it. HP was doing it. Compaq was doing it. DEC was doing it. Sun was doing it. Every data center vendor knew where this was going. Intel won but it wasn't explicitly from a partnership with MS (even NT had Alpha versions in the early days) and there were plenty of other vendors moving towards Intel (the rise of Linux was probably the nail in the coffin).

Microsoft didn't invent or single-handedly popularize the idea. I guess they changed the way some DC administration was done and helped break up the vendor-specific OS situation. But "brought the microprocessor into the data center" seems like a really bizarre way to remember what happened (largely in the 90s).

I would be curious to hear more about why he felt angst about the Nokia purchase and what his thoughts were (and are) about the whole thing. I agree that the purchase was necessary for Microsoft to have any chance of catching up in the mobile world. Even now--and this is coming from someone who uses WP8 and enjoys the Nokia phone experience quite a bit--I'm less than sanguine about Microsoft's prospects.

Yeah still not sure it will work out for them but I would like a third strong competitor in the field. A non techie relative used a Nokia windows phone for a while and just recently switched to an android phone and he is a thousand times happier. Even if the windows os has advantages it was so far behind in available applications that it may never be able to catch up.

I do give them a shot if they can go full package hardware and os, but you can't magically pull six years of developers building for iOS out of thin air. I thought google was going the cradle-to-grave mobile route with Mototola but that no longer seems likely. Samsung possibly is going to do it. If they can get an android emulator working then they have a chance at growing their own ecosystem during adoption.

The problem is developers all have limited resources. If you are chasing the money you hit iOS first. If you have enough resources you do iOS and android together. After that though you are looking on a lot of development hours without the chance of getting much return. Microsoft is very much in a chicken and egg quandary.

We already know Microsoft's new CEO is cool with creating software for other platforms so perhaps Microsoft boosts its In house app development while also acquiring key third party app developers who they can then have create their apps for the Microsoft mobile devices as well as android and iOS.

At least Microsoft might be able to carve out enough market share (if they make quality devices) to allow for a less robust but still highly functional ecosystem. Sort of the reverse of the windows and Osx dynamic. I get frustrated some times when there are programs I want to use on my Mac but they are windows only. Yet there is still a lot of stuff available for Osx to make it highly useful.

The 2 tricks Apple has are for iOS which is 1 for iPhone and 1 for iPad

The iPod and GUI etc and long over and Apple is perceived to be struggling to find a new pony (wearables and a TV are questionable at best) to replace these 2 as smart phones and tablets are on the road to being a commodity.

Like pcs are a commodity yet apple makes a crap ton of money selling them and most others make nothing?

The 2 tricks Apple has are for iOS which is 1 for iPhone and 1 for iPad

The iPod and GUI etc and long over and Apple is perceived to be struggling to find a new pony (wearables and a TV are questionable at best) to replace these 2 as smart phones and tablets are on the road to being a commodity.

What about the bloody Apple I. If they didn't come around IBM wouldn't have even entered that market.

Of course eventually somebody would have.

I think everyone is misunderstanding the trick pony thing. Microsoft currently has 2.5 trick pony's (though the xbone is struggling in its early life), Apple currently has 2 which is the iPhone and the iPad but you can easily argue 2.5 like Microsoft because iTunes/App Store is worth 0.5. The iPod is on the verge of being discontinued.

The second was "bringing microprocessor technology into the data center."

What? Microsoft had nothing to do with that. All the credit goes to intel/amd.

If any software can claim credit it's not Windows, which has never been a dominant force in the server market. Linux came out years ahead of windows server and already had 50% marketshare by the time Microsoft got 20%. Today linux is closer to 75% and windows is still around 20%.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. The "data center" didn't start when Intel or AMD entered the market, and a lot of people seem to have forgotten Unix.

I think he's referring to the ongoing struggle between them and IBM in the enterprise market. Perhaps "data center" wasn't the right choice of words. But rather information systems based on mainframes versus PC.

The 2 tricks Apple has are for iOS which is 1 for iPhone and 1 for iPad

The iPod and GUI etc and long over and Apple is perceived to be struggling to find a new pony (wearables and a TV are questionable at best) to replace these 2 as smart phones and tablets are on the road to being a commodity.

What about the bloody Apple I. If they didn't come around IBM wouldn't have even entered that market.

Of course eventually somebody would have.

Apple, Commodore, and Atari. IBM just legitimized the personal computer market for some (remember, "No one was ever fired for buying IBM").

The 2 tricks Apple has are for iOS which is 1 for iPhone and 1 for iPad

The iPod and GUI etc and long over and Apple is perceived to be struggling to find a new pony (wearables and a TV are questionable at best) to replace these 2 as smart phones and tablets are on the road to being a commodity.

Like pcs are a commodity yet apple makes a crap ton of money selling them and most others make nothing?

Apple does well with OSX devices but the market is going nowhere. OSX is still peanuts compared to Windows/Office or iOS devices.